Douglas H. Pierce In my opinion: “I believe there was a preexisting relationship between Brenda Van Dam and the Accused. Based on the comments of the PR team within the Van Dam home on February 6, 2002. I overheard the following statement by two female PR persons in the van Dam house what are we going to do about Brenda and Westerfield”.

(And we thought the PR team was called in to COVER UP the LIFESTYLE which had nothing to do with this tragedy without ever being investigated. NOPE, we ain't gunna open that door. Why not? Too many freakin', purrin' cats waiting to jump out?

Westerfield claims he was interested in Denise. Brenda claims Westerfield was interested in Barbara. ...but it's Westerfield and Brenda whose paths cross several times before Danielle goes missing. Hmmm!
Damon likes what he has with Barbara, apparently.)

Q AND YOU SAW THAT MR. WESTERFIELD APPARENTLY WAS PRESENT WITH FRIENDS OF HIS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A YES.

Q IN FACT, THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO FRIENDS OF HIS THAT HE APPEARED TO BE DRINKING WITH; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
A YES.

Q ONE OF THOSE FRIENDS DID YOU END UP DANCING WITH?
A I DON'T RECALL.

Q DO YOU RECALL TELLING DETECTIVE LABORE THAT YOU DID, IN FACT, DANCE WITH ONE OF HIS FRIENDS?
A NO, I DON'T RECALL.
(If Brenda doesn't RECALL, shouldn't we rely on the testimony of others who actually DO RECALL?)

THE COURT: HE CAN SHOW IT TO HER, BUT I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO START READING IT.

MR. FELDMAN: FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF REFRESHING RECOLLECTION OF THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AS LONG AS IT'S BETWEEN YOU AND THE WITNESS.

BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q YOU'LL SEE THAT I'M SHOWING YOU A STATEMENT OF ANOTHER WITNESS THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. I'D JUST ASK YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT REFRESHES YOUR MEMORY THAT, IN FACT, YOU HAD DANCED WITH DAVID WESTERFIELD THAT NIGHT?
A NO, I DIDN'T.

Q WHEN YOU SAY, NO, YOU DIDN'T, YOU MEAN TO SAY THE DOCUMENT DID NOT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, OR YOU DID NOT DANCE WITH DAVID WESTERFIELD?
A I DID NOT DANCE WITH DAVID WESTERFIELD.
(If Brenda said it, it MUST be true. Ha! Ha! Ha!)

Q SO ARE YOU TELLING ME NOW YOUR MEMORY IS CHANGED, TODAY, IN THAT EARLIER YOU SAID YOU WEREN'T SURE?

MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION; ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE. IT'S ON THE RECORD. I'VE HEARD IT. LET'S MOVE ON.
(Brenda says they didn't dance. Westerfield says they did. Other witnesses say they did dance. As a juror, who does one believe? Brenda, of course, she was there!
Remember all of this was from the dress rehearsal. By the time opening night comes around, it will all work out. Trust me.)

"Peer first checked to see if the carpet stain was evidence and in doing so you could no longer see it and that's why she never photographed it. She didn't meausre it becuase she could't see it but she did a report on it."

(OK, I give up. Peer finds a BROWN BLOOD STAIN, correct? Peer tests the BROWN BLOOD STAIN, correct? When it comes time to collect and document the BROWN BLOOD STAIN it disappears? Are you missing something? Then she writes a report on something that isn't visible any more? That's what some would call SMOKE and MIRRORS!!!
What a goldmine for conspiracy people. Disappearing blood. Where did the BLOOD EVIDENCE disappear to, the jacket?
If Peer used a Q-tip to test the BROWN BLOOD STAIN, wouldn't there be some of the BROWN BLOOD STAIN on the Q-tip? If Peer couldn't see the evidence, how could she collect a reference sample?
I can't type any sloooower!)

PEER:
Q. Can you tell us, first of all, what date that was?
A. There were actually three dates that I was in attendance at the motorhome. I believe it was February 5th, February 6th and February 8th.

Q. First of all, in terms of the motorhome, was it a motorhome identified to you as belonging to a David Westerfield?
A. Yes, it was.

...and let's not forget the visit on the 27th...

Q. ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO A FURTHER SEARCH OF THE MOTOR HOME AND ASK IF YOU CONDUCTED ONE ON FEBRUARY 27TH OF THIS YEAR.
A. YES, I BELIEVE I DID. YES.

Q. WHERE DID THAT OCCUR?
A. IF I MAY REFER TO MY NOTES ONCE AGAIN?

Q. YES.
A. ON FEBRUARY 27TH, I ARRIVED ON DEHESA ROAD IN EL CAJON.

Q. ACTUALLY, DID YOU -- IS THAT A DATE WHERE YOU PARTICIPATED IN A SEARCH OF THE MOTOR HOME OR WAS THAT ON A DIFFERENT DATE?
A. I ALSO PARTICIPATED IN THE SEARCH ON THE MOTOR HOME
ON THAT DATE I BELIEVE.

Q. WHICH WAS FIRST?
A. THE MOTOR HOME.
(That makes 4, FOUR visits to the motor home, but who's counting and what does it matter? Maybe they can impeach PEER and throw out her evidence and testimony!)

"Peer first checked to see if the carpet stain was evidence and in doing so you could no longer see it and that's why she never photographed it. She didn't meausre it becuase she could't see it but she did a report on it."

(OK, I give up. Peer finds a BROWN BLOOD STAIN, correct? Peer tests the BROWN BLOOD STAIN, correct? When it comes time to collect and document the BROWN BLOOD STAIN it disappears? Are you missing something? Then she writes a report on something that isn't visible any more? That's what some would call SMOKE and MIRRORS!!!
What a goldmine for conspiracy people. Disappearing blood. Where did the BLOOD EVIDENCE disappear to, the jacket?
If Peer used a Q-tip to test the BROWN BLOOD STAIN, wouldn't there be some of the BROWN BLOOD STAIN on the Q-tip? If Peer couldn't see the evidence, how could she collect a reference sample?
I can't type any sloooower!)

Clarke, "Q" cross examines Peer, "A".

Quote:

Q CAN YOU TELL ME SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE BLOODSTAIN WHICH I BELIEVE IS 84 IN THE MOTOR HOME, DID YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF THAT?

A WELL, I ATTEMPTED TO TAKE A PICTURE OF IT WHEN I BROUGHT THE SAMPLE INTO THE LABORATORY.

Q BEFORE YOU TOOK IT INTO THE LABORATORY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AS YOU ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED, DID YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF IT?

A I DID NOT TAKE A PHOTO, NO.

What happened? ...drop the camera?

Quote:

Q DO YOU HAVE A PRECISE DESCRIPTION OF THE SIZE OF THAT STAIN?

A NO. I HAVE AN APPROXIMATE DESCRIPTION.

Q I'M SORRY. WHEN YOU SAY APPROXIMATE, WHAT YOU -- WHY IS IT APPROXIMATE AND NOT. . .

A THE REASON WHY IT'S AN APPROXIMATE IS WHEN THE STAIN WAS OBSERVED BY MYSELF AND CRIMINALIST TANYA DULANEY, WE NOTED THAT A STAIN WAS PRESENT. I NOTED THE APPROXIMATE SIZE AND THE APPROXIMATE COLOR. AND THEN I CHEMICALLY TESTED IT.

DURING THE COURSE OF IT BEING CHEMICALLY TESTED, THE FIBERS OF THE CARPET WERE SOMEWHAT DISTURBED, SO AN EXACT MEASUREMENT COULD NOT BE TAKEN OF IT AFTER I HAD CHEMICALLY TESTED IT.

Q SO BEFORE THE CHEMICAL TEST WAS DONE, THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO PHOTOGRAPH IT WITH A, FOR INSTANCE, A MILLIMETER RULER OR AN INCH RULER?

A NO, THERE WAS NOT.

Q SO YOU CAN'T TELL US THE PRECISE SIZE OF THE STAIN. WHAT'S YOUR ESTIMATE?

A MY ESTIMATE IS APPROXIMATELY ONE-QUARTER-INCH IN DIAMETER.

Q AND THAT'S POST APPLICATION OF WHATEVER IT IS YOU APPLIED, IS THAT RIGHT?

A NO. THAT IS PRE CHEMICAL TESTING.

Q WHAT ARE YOU BASING THAT ON, YOUR MEMORY?

A THAT'S CORRECT.

Q DID YOU WRITE IT IN YOUR NOTES?

A NO, I DID NOT. THE REASON WHY IT DIDN'T APPEAR IN MY NOTES WAS BECAUSE IT WAS AN APPROXIMATION THAT I COULD NOT MEASURE.

So did she have a description, or was she just willing to give one?

Quote:

Q SO WHAT YOU JUST TOLD ME IS SEVERAL MONTHS LATER YOU'RE BEING ASKED YOUR BEST MEMORY OF THE SIZE OF A STAIN IN THE CASE AND IT'S YOUR BEST MEMORY TODAY THAT IT'S ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN INCH IN DIAMETER, IS THAT CORRECT?

A THAT'S CORRECT.

Is it reasonable to have a forensic specialist who can remember, but can't photograph, measure or preserve something that is a quarter inch? Should we rely on them for something microscopic, like DNA?

BWD

__________________
A big problem with wind and solar is the need to store energy for use when needed. Nature has been solving this problem for millions of years, with coal.

(Brenda says they didn't dance. Westerfield says they did. Other witnesses say they did dance. As a juror, who does one believe? Brenda, of course, she was there!

David Westerfield said he DIDN'T dance with Brenda. Brenda said she didn't dance with David Westerfield. So the jury should believe both Westerfield and Brenda.

There was nothing sexual going on between David Westerfield and Brenda. David Westerfield even tells the police he thinks Brenda is fat. Douglas Pierce is a real piece of work. Look what he did in the Jahi Turner case.

"David Westerfield said he DIDN'T dance with Brenda. Brenda said she didn't dance with David Westerfield. So the jury should believe both Westerfield and Brenda."

http://www.courttv.com/trials/wester...eyplayers.html
"...A twice-divorced father of two grown children, has no known criminal record aside from a 1996 drunken driving conviction. He is the oldest of three children. When the search for Danielle began, Westerfield initially talked to the media and said he had socialized with Brenda van Dam and two of her friends at a bar that night. He said he had a few drinks and danced with Brenda van Dam before leaving..."
(I guess somebody should contact CourtTV and let them know they aren't very accurate with their info. Now two sources say Brenda and Westerfield danced. 2-1, majority wins?)

"David Westerfield said he DIDN'T dance with Brenda. Brenda said she didn't dance with David Westerfield. So the jury should believe both Westerfield and Brenda."

http://www.courttv.com/trials/wester...eyplayers.html
"...A twice-divorced father of two grown children, has no known criminal record aside from a 1996 drunken driving conviction. He is the oldest of three children. When the search for Danielle began, Westerfield initially talked to the media and said he had socialized with Brenda van Dam and two of her friends at a bar that night. He said he had a few drinks and danced with Brenda van Dam before leaving..."
(I guess somebody should contact CourtTV and let them know they aren't very accurate with their info. Now two sources say Brenda and Westerfield danced. 2-1, majority wins?)

Since Court TV reported that David Westerfield said he danced with Brenda that must mean it's true.

You must believe the story Court TV also reported that David Westerfield wanted to plead guilty for a life sentence in return he would tell the police where he dumped Danielle van Dam's body.

It really makes no difference if Brenda danced with Westerfield because that has nothing to do with Danielle van Dam's murder. The blood on Westerfield's jacket, the blood on the motorhome carpet and all the fiber and hair evidence is what got Westerfield convicted.

Since Court TV reported that David Westerfield said he danced with Brenda that must mean it's true.

You must believe the story Court TV also reported that David Westerfield wanted to plead guilty for a life sentence in return he would tell the police where he dumped Danielle van Dam's body.

It really makes no difference if Brenda danced with Westerfield because that has nothing to do with Danielle van Dam's murder. The blood on Westerfield's jacket, the blood on the motorhome carpet and all the fiber and hair evidence is what got Westerfield convicted.

What did The blood on Westerfield's jacket, the blood on the motorhome carpet and all the fiber and hair evidence have to do with Danielle's murder?

BWD

__________________
A big problem with wind and solar is the need to store energy for use when needed. Nature has been solving this problem for millions of years, with coal.

GRACE: Larry, there's not going to be a hung jury. That's my prediction. If they don't buy the girl's blood in the RV, her hair, her fiber, her fingerprints, the fact that the defendant disappeared the weekend she did, that he had the evidence dry-cleaned -- not only that, Larry, he had his RV steam-cleaned, OK, before the police could look at it.

KING: Nancy, so you have found him guilty?

GRACE: Well, I'm waiting to hear what else the defense puts up, but right now, the evidence speaks for itself.

(CROSSTALK)

RONIS: The case isn't over yet.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: I've heard the evidence, Jan.

RONIS: You haven't heard all of the evidence.

GRACE: Can you give me one reason, Jan Ronis, why a man would go have his RV, his entire RV steam cleaned before police could search it?

( Grace believing what she hears in the media, and the media gets it's information from????????? )

LEE: If you have the steam clean, how can you still find the fingerprints, also blood stain on the carpet. So it's not really steam cleaned. So they did find some evidence.

Faulkner - Oh uh, don't know. Don't know how, there's a lot of speculation about what actually happened, ya know, what the route was, uh they had obviously phone calls, evidence, all these other things, eyewitnesses accounts, out in Glamis when he got the vehicle stuck. So it's all the (inaudible) route to the Silver Strand, back to Sabre Springs, out to the desert, back to the Silver Strand and back, of course there's no evidence of that. But then that's what he says, and then back to Sabre Springs. What really happened? We don't know on that. But uh, it definitely could have occurred while the victim was in the motorhome, um because there was a lot of bleach evidence in the motorhome, so.

(Brenda initially tells John & Ken, she honestly doesn't remember dancing with Mr. Westerfield, Damon says maybe DW's a liar, they lie to police for several hours while their daughter is missing, they continually contradict each other, Barbara doesn't testify, but she let the cat out of the bag, the affidavit for a warrant is based on untruths, BLEACH and Cleaning the motorhome is used for an excuse for why detectives were initially suspicious of DW, even though they were watching and waiting for his return, told to detain him, AND evidence RELATED to the girls disappearance is found in his SUV, BUT they have no plans to arrest him. BLEACH explains why the dogs didn't pick up Danielle's scent, "blood, hair, prints." Most of the insects were in the mouth, the insects weren't interested in the head, yet they WERE. The plea bargain never happened, but Brenda initiated it. Danielle's blinds are always left open, but Damon opened them. Damon lets the dog out to greet Brenda and the guest, but only one person sees the dog, and it's while they are ALL seated at the kitchen table eating pizza and cookies TOGETHER.

Some day I'm going to make a list of reasons why I believe David Westerfield is sitting in San Quentin. )

__________________Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one.

"...Did the media fail to publish the testimony that there was no bleach smell? It was all a lie, and it was demonstrated to be a lie, and Faulkner still believes it?..."
(Remember who contracts Faulkner for entomology work. You can bite the hand that feeds, just not very hard!)

...A. Detective Parga had mentioned a bleach smell in the garage around the -- around the area the 4-Runner was parked.

...A. ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE BLEACH SMELL?

Q. WELL, OKAY. LET'S REFER TO THE BLEACH SMELL.
A. I DIDN'T SMELL IT TILL I GOT OVER TO THE EAST SIDE.

Q. SO IT WAS VERY LOCALIZED?
A. IT SEEMED TO BE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE GARAGE TO ME.

...A: WHEN I WALKED AROUND TO THE EAST SIDE, WHICH WOULD BE THE WORKBENCH AREA, I NOTICED AN ODOR OF BLEACH IN THAT AREA. I DIDN'T NOTICE ANY BLEACH BOTTLE OUT. I JUST I COULD SMELL THE ODOR OF BLEACH.
(Did you look in the trash for an empty bleach bottle Sherlock?)

... Q DETECTIVE PARGA TOLD YOU AT SOME POINT THAT SHE SMELLED BLEACH ON HER SIDE OF THE GARAGE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.

Q YOU DIDN'T SMELL ANY BLEACH ON YOUR SIDE OF THE GARAGE, THOUGH, DID YOU?
A THAT'S CORRECT.

Q YOU DIDN'T SMELL ANY BLEACH IN THE HOUSE, DID YOU?
A NO, I DIDN'T.

Q YOU DIDN'T SMELL ANY BLEACH IN THE MOTORHOME, DID YOU?
A I DID NOT.
(Who claimed to have smelled bleach in the motor home?
Would anybody doing laundry on a Monday morning with the smell of bleach in their garage be considered a suspect? Would an EMPTY bleach bottle in the trash can suggest a person ran out of bleach while doing laundry?)

* Rick Roberts’ high-placed law enforcement official said that the van Dams were involved in "swinging, lots of wife swapping."
(True or False?)

* Rick Roberts’ high-placed law enforcement official said that before Danielle’s disappearance, the van Dam’s neighbor, David Westerfield "found out about the family’s (van Dam’s) swinging lifestyle and approached them to host an adult party at his house."
(True or False?)

* Rick Roberts’ high-placed law enforcement official said that on the night of Danielle’s disappearance, "Brenda van Dam was at a local Poway bar where she was grinding away on the dance floor and possibly ‘did’ a guy in the parking lot."
(True or False?)

* Rick Roberts’ high-placed law enforcement official said, "Brenda left the bar with 2 girlfriends and 2 guys and went back to the van Dam’s house."
(True or False?)

* Rick Roberts’ high-placed law enforcement official said, "One timeline given in police records shows Brenda coming home from the bar to find the light [on the alarm] flashing and a door open. [She closed the door]."
(True or False?)

* Rick Roberts’ high-placed law enforcement official said that Brenda "‘gave’ one of the girlfriends to her husband Damon ‘as a present,’ and made sure to shut the doors on all the bedrooms so the kids wouldn’t be awakened by loud lovemaking. She did not look to see if the kids were in their rooms."
(True or False?)

* Rick Roberts’ high-placed law enforcement official said, "the adults locked themselves in the van Dam’s garage – they have special inside locks so the kids can’t come in – and started smoking marijuana and ‘fooling around.’ The adults in the garage were Brenda, Damon, 2 girlfriends, and 2 guys from the bar."
(True or False?)

* Rick Roberts’ high-placed law enforcement official said, "after everyone had sex, Damon noticed the [alarm] light blinking and a door open. They were busy with their adult party, so they never checked on the kids."
(True or False? Interesting that each one of these pieces of HEARSAY was brought up in court.
Good reasons to keep hearsay out of the courtrooms.)

In 2003, after Westerfield's conviction, James Selby wrote to the police confessing to the Van Dam murder. He was wanted for raping women in San Diego in 2001, and for kidnapping a 9-year-old Oklahoma girl from her bedroom in the middle of the night and raping her in 1999, and was charged with a spring 2001 sexual assault on a 12-year-old girl in Sparks, Nevada, but police don't believe that he murdered Van Dam. Prosecutor Jeff Dusek, who did read the confession, viewed it as not credible.
(After all, he WAS the storyteller.)
It is believed that James Selby was in the Tucson, Arizona area when Van Dam was kidnapped in February 2002. Selby is believed to be responsible for a series of rapes in Arizona from October 2001 to May 2002. Selby - a divorced father of three - worked as a handyman and machinist and traveled often between San Diego and Tucson. He had a prior rape conviction in Colorado. In addition, Selby admitted responsibility in the slaying of JonBenét Ramsey. According to Deputy County Attorney Bradley Roach, "It was an aspect of his personality to confess to something to see what other people would say," said Roach. Selby committed suicide in his jail cell on November 22, 2004.